5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ljubljana.
6.  On 11 January 1984 the applicant, while walking on the street under the influence of alcohol, run into another person, I.Š., who sustained injuries.
7.  On 20 June 1989 I.Š. instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in the Ljubljana Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking compensation for the loss of income and a monthly rent.
On 17 June 1991 the court delivered a judgment, partly upholding I.Š.'s claim.
On 13 November 1991 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) quashed the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
After the Ljubljana Basic Court had issued a new judgment in the case, the Ljubljana Higher Court, on 4 November 1992, quashed it again.
On 25 November 1993, after the re-examination of the case, the Ljubljana Basic Court ruled in favour of I.Š. The applicant again appealed.
On 2 February 1994 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected his appeal.
8.  On 21 March 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia.
On 8 December 1994 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 1 February 1995.
9.  On 13 March 1995 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
On 16 January 1997 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) annulled the lower courts' judgements due to a violation of equal protection of rights guaranteed in Article 22 of the Slovenian Constitution. It found that the courts had, in determining the existence of the applicant's civil liability for damages, relied on final judgments issued in separate proceedings which had deprived the applicant of his right to defend his interests effectively. It ordered a re-examination of the case.
10.  In the meantime, however, the applicant, on 10 April 1995, lodged a request for re-opening of the proceedings. After two hearings (the first one was adjourned due to the applicant's late submissions) the renamed Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani), on 13 May 1996, upheld the applicant's request and annulled the first-instance judgement of 25 November 1993. That decision was served on the applicant on 12 July 1996.
On 13 September 1996 the Ljubljana Higher Court partly upheld I.Š.'s appeal but approved the decision concerning the re-opening. The decision was served on the applicant on 8 October 1996.
11. On an unspecified date, but apparently prior to April 1998, the applicant lodged criminal charges for the abuse of public office with the Novo Mesto District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Novem mestu) against the judge B.I., who was responsible for the first-instance proceedings prior to their re-opening.
In addition, the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) against the State seeking compensation for damage resulting from the allegedly unlawful proceedings.
On 21 April 1998 the Ljubljana Local Court sent the case-file to Novo Mesto District Court to enable it to decide on the criminal charges against the judge.
It received the case-file back on 15 March 1999.
On 11 October 1999 the case-file was sent to the State Attorney's Office which had requested it in respect of the civil proceedings instituted against the State. On 17 January 2000, the Celje District Court decided to discontinue the civil proceedings against the State until the main proceedings and the criminal proceedings would be concluded.
12.  In the main proceedings, the case was again considered before the Ljubljana Local Court as a result of the re-opening decision of 13 May 1996 and the Constitutional Court's decision of 16 January 1997 (see paragraphs 9 and 10).
At the hearing held on 1 December 1999, the Ljubljana Local Court noticed that the case-file was still at the State Attorney's Office. However, on 28 December 1999 the case-file was returned and the proceedings continued.
Between 22 November 1999 and 20 November 2002, the applicant lodged eleven preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.
On 28 November 2001 the court appointed a medical expert.
 During the proceedings, the court made also inquires with I.Š.'s employer and the Slovenian Institute for Statistics (Zavod Republike Slovenije za statistiko) concerning the question of loss of I.Š.'s potential income.
Of the nine hearings held between 1 December 1999 and 20 November 2002, one was adjourned due to the applicant's late submissions. Two hearings fixed for 5 June 2000 and 13 September 2000 were called off due to an unavailability of a witness.
On 20 November 2002 the court issued an interim judgment finding that the applicant was liable for damages up to forty per cents. The judgment was served on the applicant on 13 January 2003.
13. On 27 January 2003 the applicant appealed. I.Š. also appealed.
On 11 June 2003 the Ljubljana Higher Court partly upheld the applicant's appeal and reduced his liability to twenty per cent. The judgment was served on the applicant on 7 July 2003.
14. In the course of the proceedings the applicant lodged two and I.Š. three requests for supervision.
The applicant informed the judge M.J., responsible for the first-instance proceedings (paragraph 12), that he might initiate criminal proceedings also against her. He also lodged a request for opening of disciplinary proceedings against her and against the Ljubljana Higher Court's judges who had decided on his appeal.
15.  On 23 July 2003 the applicant and on 18 August 2003 I.Š. lodged appeals on points of law.
On 7 October 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the appeals.
The decision was apparently served on the applicant on 5 November 2004.
16. In the meanwhile, on 27 August 2003, the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the first and the second-instance courts' judgments.
On 6 July 2005 the Constitutional Court, taking into account also the Supreme Court's decision of 7 October 2004, dismissed the applicant's appeal as manifestly ill-founded. The decision was served on the applicant on 11 July 2005.
17. The first-instance proceedings concerning the amount of compensation to be awarded to I.Š. are still pending.